I dunno, you're exchanging guaranteed corruption for a 99% chance of corruption. Extra 1%'s an improvement, at least.[/QUOTE]
No, No, its just better to take away the rights of certain groups of people to vote.
- Status
No, No, its just better to take away the rights of certain groups of people to vote.
I
Iaculus
I dunno, you're exchanging guaranteed corruption for a 99% chance of corruption. Extra 1%'s an improvement, at least.[/QUOTE]
No, No, its just better to take away the rights of certain groups of people to vote.[/QUOTE]
Wait, who did actually suggest that here? Anyone?
C
Chummer
When what the rich is doing interferes with the democratic process, hell yes we should tell them what to do with it.[/QUOTE]
Yes. It's a problem when this super rich companies use thier wealth to basiclly do whatever they please, everyone else be damned.
That's not capitalism, that's evil.
Heyyyy that powers the economy!I think this shows why I have a hard time feeling sorry for CEO's-
Being rewarded for hard work is a good thing. This looks more like outright theft.
Also, Minimum wage -9.3%? wtf?
To put it in perspectives easier to understand...
In 2005, the average worker would have made $108,138, compared to the actual average of $28,314 if it had grown at the same rate as CEO pay.
If the federal minimum wage had grown at the same rate as CEO pay, it would have been $22.61 in 2005, instead of $5.15.
Clive Crook from the Atlantic wrote-
In 2005, the average worker would have made $108,138, compared to the actual average of $28,314 if it had grown at the same rate as CEO pay.
If the federal minimum wage had grown at the same rate as CEO pay, it would have been $22.61 in 2005, instead of $5.15.
Clive Crook from the Atlantic wrote-
Thank God the FMW didn't grow at the same rate or you would be paying 20 bucks for a half gallon of milk and 30 dollars for that hazelnut mocha cappalatte.
That being said, I don't think the minimum wage is the issue, and dealing with CEO pay is something I think we need regulation on to an extent.
That being said, I don't think the minimum wage is the issue, and dealing with CEO pay is something I think we need regulation on to an extent.
Kinda my point. They have had income increases way beyond what could be called normal compensation for inflation.
A
Armadillo
Why? CEO compensation is set by the Board of Directors, who are in turn elected by shareholders. If the shareholders have a problem with the Board or the CEO, lobby your fellow shareholders to run the bum out on a rail. No need for even MORE governmental interference in private business.
And if the CEO/Board are corrupt enough to run the company into the ground, then they declare bankruptcy and the shareholders are paid off with company and/or personal assets. It's amazing how well the system works when you BLOODY WELL ALLOW IT TO.
Why? CEO compensation is set by the Board of Directors, who are in turn elected by shareholders. If the shareholders have a problem with the Board or the CEO, lobby your fellow shareholders to run the bum out on a rail. No need for even MORE governmental interference in private business.
And if the CEO/Board are corrupt enough to run the company into the ground, then they declare bankruptcy and the shareholders are paid off with company and/or personal assets. It's amazing how well the system works when you BLOODY WELL ALLOW IT TO.[/QUOTE]
Except for the workers who lost their jobs due to the actions of CEO's with payment plans, still get paid even though they run the place into the ground, shareholders no longer have stock worth anything.
Great system.
A
Armadillo
Why? CEO compensation is set by the Board of Directors, who are in turn elected by shareholders. If the shareholders have a problem with the Board or the CEO, lobby your fellow shareholders to run the bum out on a rail. No need for even MORE governmental interference in private business.
And if the CEO/Board are corrupt enough to run the company into the ground, then they declare bankruptcy and the shareholders are paid off with company and/or personal assets. It's amazing how well the system works when you BLOODY WELL ALLOW IT TO.[/QUOTE]
Except for the workers who lost their jobs due to the actions of CEO's with payment plans, still get paid even though they run the place into the ground, shareholders no longer have stock worth anything.
Great system.[/QUOTE]
But what's the answer? I agree with you that those CEOs that do that are scumbags, but the risk of losing your shirt is part of the deal of becoming a common stockholder. High risk, high potential return. If you don't want to take on the risk, don't buy the stock. You're not being forced to, right?
As for the workers, it does stink on ice for them, but again, what's the answer? If a company fails, it fails. To use an example in a specific industry, 90% of all restaurants go out of business within five years of startup, putting all of those cooks, servers, and bartenders out of a job. Risk of failure is a necessary evil in a free market. If nobody can fail, nobody can truly succeed. Everybody just kind of floats around in a pool of mediocrity.
Giant difference between failing because it wasn't run well and failing because someone ran it into the ground by being an asshole. Over here running stuff into the ground has made many a people rich... (but of course they're in collusion with the government so meh).
The government should set standards on certain stuff, one being how much money they can give themselves (btw, money is not a good motivator, i had a teacher argue it not one at all, she was wrong, as you do extra stuff if there's extra money in it, but not beyond that, like you might do with the other stuff).
Dismissing the argument coz he's an attention whore is a fallacy btw... kicking him in the nuts coz he's one is the right course of action...
Inflation shows up as a negative when you hold the value of a dollar steady. Crap around you gets more expensive but what you get paid over 10 years does not change... or the value of that dollar gets less...
- Status